[phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- From: "Mark Rogers" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <phpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:00:39 +0100
> The HTML page will probably be fastest.
> Accelerated PHP in the middle. Bog-standard
> PHP the slowest. [...]
> That's probably all you need to know.
Thanks, that's what I thought. I wondered whether the SHM might push it past
HTML but didn;t really expect it to.
Thinking about it, one of the main things I'm not doing is setting the
headers to tell browsers to cache the page; that might do more good than
worrying about PHP caching in the long run.
Mark Rogers, Quarella Ltd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.php-accelerator.co.uk Home of the free PHP Accelerator
To post, send email to phpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, email phpa-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with subject unsubscribe
- Follow-Ups:
- [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- From: Rense Klinkenberg
- References:
- [phpa] Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- From: Mark Rogers
- [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- From: Nick Lindridge
Other related posts:
- » [phpa] Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- » [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- From: Rense Klinkenberg
- [phpa] Cached "static" PHP vs HTML
- From: Mark Rogers
- [phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML
- From: Nick Lindridge